[topicmapmail] How to address Web resources with XTM?

[Murray Altheim]

Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
> 
>  Now, if I use
> 
>>    <resourceRef xlink:href="http://www.altheim.com/murray/"/>
>>
>>it means the web page itself, as a resource. 
> 
> what do you mean by 'the Web page'?
> 
> Also, what do you mean by 'resource'?
> 
> (Sorry, but resource is so overloaded these days that I really have to ask)

Jan,

Maybe it's your Germanic blood (I've got it too), but I still
think you're making this more complicated than it is. It doesn't
matter what you or I *mean* by the resource. <resourceRef> within
XTM only does one thing: it indicates a subject. It doesn't go
any further, doesn't talk about resolution or anything. The
interpretation is left to the specific application. XTM 1.0 states:

   "An information resource whose identity is computable (that
    is, a computer system can retrieve the resource and make
    deterministic comparisons between it, and some other resource,
    to establish their identity or difference). An example of an
    addressable information resource is the online version of this
    document. In this specification, the term resource is used
    synonymously with addressable information resource unless
    otherwise stated."

The key here is that "a computer system can retrieve the resource
and make deterministic comparisons between it, and some other
resource, to establish their identity or difference." If you and
I talk about a specific subject via a URI as an identifier, since
the identifier is fixed, it is up to the application to determine
if within a given context or interpretation we mean the same thing.
This could be done using last modification dates, or by an analysis
of internal document metadata. If, for example, I referred to the
BBC home page via its URL, it's clear that given that the page
states clearly "updated every minute of every day", the resource
itself is constantly changing. What would the use of that URI then
*mean*?

That kind of epistemological conundrum I don't hope to answer in
any short email message. I've watched the W3C go around on this
one for years now, with no end in sight. It's a pointless question,
as absent any context there *is* no standard interpretation. It's
like asking the meaning of a word. A word has no meaning absent
its interpretation -- they are inseparable -- *we* make meaning
from symbols, the meaning isn't in them.

I think my point all along is this: for your purposes you simply
need to further characterize your topics with other information
to assist your application in performing the tasks the way you
want them performed.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   "The crisis in Haiti has been growing since Aristide's party won
    flawed legislative elections in 2000, and international donors
    froze millions of dollars in aid. Opponents said Aristide broke
    promises to help the poor, permitted corruption that was fueled
    by drug trafficking and was behind attacks that armed gangs made
    on his critics. Aristide, who was once backed by the United States,
    had denied these charges."
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/01/national1354EST0651.DTL

   "The crisis in the US has been growing since Bush's party won
    flawed legislative elections in 2000, and corporate donors gave
    them millions of dollars in aid. Opponents said Bush broke
    promises to help the poor, permitted corruption that was fueled
    by oil trafficking and was behind attacks on the patriotism of
    his critics. Bush, who was once backed by the United States,
    had denied these charges."